Is it Time for a New Constitution? The Arguments Pro & Con

Is it Time for a New Constitution? The Arguments Pro & Con

October 9, 2025

Host: Hon. Sam Rohrer

Guest: David New

Note: This transcript is taken from a Stand in the Gap Today program aired on 10/09/25. To listen to the podcast, click HERE.

Disclaimer: While reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate transcription, the following is a representation of a mechanical transcription and as such, may not be a word for word transcript. Please listen to the audio version for any questions concerning the following dialogue.

Sam Rohrer:

Hello and welcome to this Thursday edition of Stand In the Gap Today, and it’s also our bimonthly emphasis on the Constitution and American history with David New constitutional attorney, historian, author, and public speaker. Now, as I consider events unfolding around us in our nation here in the United States from for instance, the budget showdowns underway now to the failure of Congress and frankly the Presidents all for nearly two decades, their failure to follow constitutionally and statutorily guarded and directed obligations in regard to having prepared budgets done on time and properly passed and adopted from those things to our current president pursuing partial government ownerships. You may not be aware of it, but that is happening. Partial government ownerships with big tech companies, which by definition no matter how you look at it, is fascism. Government cannot have partial ownership with private companies, but that is happening.

But there are so many things like these other considerations of public policy in the constitution. All of these things I just mentioned plus so much more, they’re all connected. They all have a point of contact regarding the Constitution and how this government is to function. Well. These things bring up the stark reality of our constitution and frankly, as some are saying, some would say it’s not sufficient to guide the American Republic in the 21st century. For a long time, some have declared that our constitution as it is, is not satisfactory and must be changed. Others say that there is nothing wrong at all with our Constitution except that it’s just not being followed. Now, scholars, historians, and the public at large are increasingly asking, do we need a new constitution or is our current constitution hopelessly outdated and unfit for the 21st century? Well, you’ve no doubt heard commentators and others discuss this issue in various media outlets before because they have been doing it for a long time.

But many in the progressive movement believe America cannot go forward unless we get a new constitution. They argue things. Well, they’ve changed since 1787 and so much so that we must change with the times, and that includes the constitution, the candidacy of Zoran Mamdani, and New York City is run for governor, which David New and I talked about. The last segment brings this consideration into further clarity since that individual is an Islamic adherent and a Democratic socialist and therefore ideologically doubly in opposition to essential provisions of the Constitution. So what do we do? Alright, the title I’ve chosen to frame our conversation today is this. Is It Time for a New Constitution, the Arguments Pro and Con, and that’s what we’ll do today. David, thanks for being with me and we have quite an issue to get involved in just a minute.

David New

Yes, it is a big issue and it’s so nice to be with you and blessings to everyone with us today.

Sam Rohrer:

And David, I want to get into this here before we get into this issue. In the next segment you’re going to talk about and present the domestic and global organizations that have been pushing for a change constitution. Segment three, ladies and gentlemen, just for a roadmap perspective, David’s going to give the pro and the arguments for and against making changes in the last segment. Then we’ll go to, well, some of those other consequences that would happen if in fact the Constitution as we have it were to be dislodged. But David, there’s another area going on right now that touches on the Constitution. We’ve touched on it briefly before, but more has happened and that’s in regard to the President seeking to place either National Guard or other military in Chicago and Portland or other cities as he has said that he would likely do. What are your thoughts about this potential placing of US military around the nation in multiple cities?

David New:

As a basic rule, I don’t care for it. It has a real bad taste. I’m a very firm supporter of President Trump. Every time his name was on the ballot, I voted for him. And I don’t think he can or will run again for anything, but if he did, I would vote for him. But I don’t think this is a wise thing to be doing. There would be one exception, he can do it in DC for sure, but the one exception I would give him some space to do it is in Chicago, south Chicago is an absolute war zone, and these people in that area, they suffer sometimes 30, 40, 50 gunshots in that part of Chicago. Quite a few people die every weekend in Chicago. And what should have happened is that the governor or the mayor or somebody, well especially the governor, should have called out the National Guard themselves to put the violence down.

This has been going on in Chicago for a long time and they just tolerate it. They’ve gotten used to it, they accept it and everything. Let’s face it, one of the reasons why it goes on is because all of this is going on in the black community. If you had the same level of violence in the white community in Chicago, the government would’ve called out the National Guard, Illinois National Guard a long time ago, and it’s a shame that this is going on. If I was governor of Illinois, I would’ve done a flanking maneuver against Donald Trump. I would’ve called out the National Guard and put him in South Chicago.

Sam Rohrer:

That’s interesting because from a constitutional perspective, if that were to happen David, then there wouldn’t be the issue of concern that is being talked about right now with the courts getting involved and all of that because as governors, they do have that right to do such a thing. I mean that’s what you’re saying, correct,

David New:

Yes. And the violence, there are more people on certain days and weekends where more people are killed in Chicago than in the Gaza or in the Ukraine war. This is how violent this area is.

Sam Rohrer:

Yeah, well see, and that’s why when the right people constitutionally in this regard, the governors and ought be starting with the mayor. The mayor ought, I mean what’s really bad about it, David, this kind of thing, is that those who have a duty, moral and constitutional duty like the mayor in a sitting like that, and then above them actually the legislature ought to be involved and the governor has the authority to enforce the law, but when those who ought to be doing and enforcing don’t do it, it opens the door for other higher levels of authority. And that brings in the question then, alright, do we really want the federal government on the ground? All right, ladies and gentlemen, you get the idea that is the issue, but these kinds of things are happening on areas all are not just matters of lawlessness and safety, but frankly we’re seeing things in monetary changes, other areas of economics and a lot of things that are taking place now because things weren’t done right by the people when they had a chance to do them.

Now they’re all becoming big issues and it’s going to one place and that’s not the place we want to go. Stay with us. We’ll be right back a minute. Well, if you’re just joining us, we’re just at the beginning of the program really going into segment two. Our theme today is this. Is it Time for a New Constitution, the arguments pro and con. So we set the program up by saying, and that there’s been people for a long time really on both sides saying it’s well, our constitution is old, outdated, it needs to be changed. Others saying No, and I’ll put myself in this category. There’s nothing wrong with our constitution, it’s just that people don’t follow it. Now that’s just my sense I’m going to throw in there at the moment. But David is going to, David New who is the guest here today and all of you who join us regularly are very familiar with him.

That’s our theme. We’re going to walk down through this, but just want to think of the brilliance. Truly the brilliance of the US Constitution has been recognized globally since its creation. We’ve had a major anniversary coming up here soon in this nation here. It’s been around for a long time. It’s a longstanding constitution, historically longstanding, but you can’t really separate our constitution from the earlier companion document that of the Declaration of Independence, which actually contains the foundational premises of God, God as creator, God as Giver of Rights. God asked judge and the justification for our nation, the fledgling group of colonies back then to actually seek independence from Great Britain and to form a new union of states. So you have to put those two together. Yet along the way, these last couple hundred years, so enemies of freedom and the tenets of the declaration together, people have sought changes. They sought changes to the Constitution saying that as long as the US Constitution is enforced, global government cannot rise. And there’s a lot of truth to that. David, let’s get into that. Let’s start here. Start at home here domestically. What does your research show to be the most significant groups or people or organizations, however you want to put a dedicated to calling for a new constitution and why? So start here and then go globally, however you want to go.

David New:

Well, an organization that has its foundation after World War II in the 1940s is a group called the Citizens for Global Solutions. They were previously known as the United World Federalists. And here’s what they said about themselves. It says, citizens for Global Solutions is a grassroots level membership organization in the United States working towards the establishment of a world government in order to avoid future atomic wars. And then of course, one of the great members of this organization was Albert Einstein. He joined it in 1948 and he was on the advisory board of this organization. Another famous person was Senator Allen Cranston, a US senator from the state of California who served from 1969 to 1993. He was part of this organization from 1949 to 1952. He was the president of it. So there are organizations that want to definitely eliminate the change of the US Constitution and surrender national sovereignty.

Another one that’s been more recent, if you want absolute proof that this exists, is a document called Freedom from War. Freedom from War. I went on the internet to see if I could get it down, and this is a publication that came out in September, 1961. It’s a department of state publication during the Kennedy administration. The number is 7 2 7 Department of State publication 7 2 7 7 dis disarmament series number five. And this document can be found in the internet archive and it’s titled Freedom from War. This is the Kennedy’s administration where they have a three-step process to bring about world government, where the United States hands over all its ICBMs, all its nuclear weapons over to a world government. And this in turn, they will police the world for us. The president will no longer be commander in chief, but he will be like a police chief of a city.

This is about as raw as it gets when you see the Department of State publishing this type of document, freedom from war. There is another organization that’s quite critical of the United States that blames the United States for the lack of world government today. It’s an organization called Democracy Without Borders, democracy Without Borders. And they conducted a survey from 2017 to 2021. They surveyed 42,000 people and 17 nations. They basically covered almost, they represented these nations about 54% of the world nations. And they had some real nice things about countries who want to have world government, some of them very high in favor. The percentage was quite high up to high as 75 to 82%. They include governments of Egypt, India, Kenya, Indonesia, South Korea, Columbia and Hungary. And there were other governments who weren’t so interested. That would be Russia and Argentina. They were not too interested in world government. But the worst one of all, the worst one of all was the United States and their webpage, they said this, the outlier is the US where only 45% of the surveyed people in this country that were asked this question supported the idea of world government. Listen to this sentence on this group’s webpage. This group is based in Germany. Listen to what it said. Hence us public opinion constitutes a potential obstacle to any efforts for the establishment of a world government.

So we’re the bad guys. We’re the ones that’s blocking world government from coming to blossom. As far as they’re concerned, we’re the worst because we have the least public support. And of course, the reason is Americans like the Constitution. They like the idea that the United States should be a sovereign nation. So the US is the only surveyed country, as is said in this report without majority support. So this shows you the effort. And of course ladies and gentlemen, if you know your Bible and you know your Bible prophecy, you can see Bible prophecy at work in this situation all over the place. It’s everywhere. And of course you listen to this program at any lengthy period, you’re going to hear a lot about the Bible and about Bible prophecy on this program. And so here we can see these different organizations against the sovereignty of the United States.

Sam Rohrer:

United States. Okay David. And that brings it up into really current terms because the discussion of the last years have been around the globalist, as they said, those who want world government, the United Nations trying to tell people what to do even in the conflict right now between Ukraine for instance, and Russia, which is really Russia and NATO. And we’re in that mix clearly. What does Russia keep saying? We are not going to hand over our sovereignty. We’re not going to hand over our sovereignty to some new order. And it’s interesting when you cite the information that you cited, the ones least supportive of a global government was the United States, Russia and Argentina. So it’s not only been happening for a long time, this fight is currently underway right now. It really is, isn’t it?

David New:

There are several reasons why the United States is the outlier as they describe us. Number one is the influence of the Bible in the United States. Number two is the popularity of the Constitution in the United States. Now the Constitution is under severe attack within this country. We’ve never had the large numbers of people who don’t really care about the US Constitution like we have today. But still the vast majority of Americans are not interested in a new constitution. And if you want to understand the large level of animus by the liberal eastern establishment and by the world community against Donald Trump, this is it. This is number one on their issue. Donald Trump makes it very clear explicitly. So even in his first term he did it where he says he’s the President of the United States and he is going to put the United States first and that runs against the UN and everything they represent.

Sam Rohrer:

And that brings us right up to the break, David. So there is that part. So ladies and gentlemen, the point being, yeah, organizations, people, ideologies, domestic and global have been pushing for a global government. We see it unfold before us and that does come off the pages of scripture. But what stands in the way of that is at this moment in time anyways, it’s mostly our nation. And as the document that really guides most of who and what we are, it is the constitution and hence the appropriateness of having that discussion here today. As some are saying, do we need a new constitution? When we come back, we’re going to consider the arguments both for and against a constitutional change. Well, as we’re in our middle of the program now we’re talking about the Constitution into question is simply this, is it time for a new constitution?

The arguments pro and con, we’re raising this and discussing this because there are frankly many who for a long time, primarily for the same reason, but not exclusively have said the US Constitution is old, it’s outdated. Alright? As in any proposal, I’m going to say put forth by government or leaders or those who benefit by some government program or whatever, they have peculiar interest because everybody’s relationship to government is a little different or citizens, yes. But if you’re a lobbyist, that’s one thing. If you’re being subsidized by some government program, you’re another spot. If you’re a congressman, you’re in another position. So those things change depending upon some of those aspects. But frankly, whenever change happens, there are always compelling arguments which accompany the proposed changes. And frankly, the overwhelming majority of these I have found anyways from my time in government. I’m observing what is happening that when you see a proposed change that moves you from the status quo to some new area, almost exclusively, they’re either substantially or mostly lies because why do I say that?

Well, because there really is hardly anyone in government. I mean you can count them on one hand who are committed to doing the purpose of government from God’s perspective and following their oath to the letter for the support of the Constitution. And what is God’s model is a servant led government where those who are in government are ministers of God, servants of God first, and then servants to the people second. That is what Romans chapter 13 is all about. Those who understand that you can count ’em on one hand. And so if they’re not of that mindset, those in government will never seek to give up power that they have. In fact, they doubled down on it and they think that they have more. Well, they deserve more than the citizens. And that’s what our founders said and that’s why they developed the Constitution and gave us the Declaration of Independence. But that’d being aside, considering the arguments now for who would be for and against is a valid process to walk through. So David, from your perspective, what would you say are the leading arguments made by those who are saying that it is time for a new US constitution give their best arguments as you’ve been able to find them?

David New:

Yes, there are several key arguments that have been used, but ladies and gentlemen, let me point this out to you. When we think of the Bible, we largely think of it as essential for our salvation to find out what God wants us to do for our individual salvation as well as for our family and for our local church and the members of the church. And we know that the Bible is important to the nation, the nation’s spiritual health. But what we don’t know and we don’t realize is how important the Bible is to the United States on an international level, on an international level, we have them publicly censored because we are not interested in world government. What is the number one obstacle to that? It is the influence of the Bible and the basis of the Constitution, which has a spiritual foundation all the way through it.

So there are international repercussions for the influence of the Bible in this country. And if Christianity continues to lose influence, although we’re seeing an uptick, a very powerful one at the moment, and we hope it continues. But if we continue to go down to a secular path, world government is right around the corner. We need to work to stop it. Now what are the key arguments against the US Constitution? Numero Uno, gridlock, gridlock. People today want government to be able to move fast and faster. The one thing about the Constitution that it is not about is moving things around faster. In fact, the Constitution is almost set up to make sure that change will not happen very fast. Look how difficult it is to amend the US Constitution. Look how difficult it is to get things through the Senate and the House. This is done this way deliberately by the framers of the Constitution so that when we do move, when we do bring change, the consensus is enormous.

It’s not small, it’s big, it’s got to have a lot of push behind it. Now the Constitution set up a limited government and that’s why the Constitution is not interested and changes in a fast way limited government. What’s the message of today? It is unlimited government. The solution to the world’s problems is not limited government. It’s having more government. So naturally, the progressives, the liberals, and a lot of these people, the Constitution bothers them a lot because they can’t get things done that they want to have done. Whereas if you support limited government, you may not like gridlock, but you accept it much easier. The second major argument that people don’t like about the United States Constitution is the institution of the Senate. People today cannot understand how several states with a half a million people have the same number of votes in the US Senate than the state of California or Texas or New York.

They can’t understand how that could be appropriate and why anybody would do something like that. They say it’s fundamentally unfair, it’s a little bit nuts. And that’s because they don’t teach civics in the public schools. Each and every state in the United States possesses sovereignty. Sovereignty. Each state is a sovereign, a fully sovereign state minus the sovereignty that they have voluntarily surrendered to the central government, the federal government. And if they understood and saw it in that context, then you would understand why it is perfectly appropriate for Delaware to have two senators just like California. Again, one of the best ways to show that this concept of unequal representation for a sovereign nation is accepted is look at the United Nations. The country of China has billions of people, billions of them, and yet they have one single vote in the un, like 190 other nations.

We don’t distribute power in the UN on the basis of popular vote. We do it on the basis of sovereignty. So little nations Lichtenstein that I talked about a long time ago, that little nation has the same vote in the UN that China does or the United States, even though it’s a very small entity. So the Senate is a major problem because people don’t understand it. The next one that’s big, that’s really on target today, and you can see it all the time, is the electoral college. This institution has served the United States extremely well. It produces a president very effectively. We know by the time the election is over, we’re going to have a president. And that’s important and it serves the country extremely well because it draws upon the whole nation. If you went by popular vote, whoever won the top five popular states would be president almost every time.

But this way, when you have an electoral college, all the small states get to have a rule and the decision-making process. One of the reasons why Al Gore is not president and did not become president is because he changed. He was a senator from Tennessee and he was vice president, but he went to the far left. Tennessee is a far more conservative state. If he had carried his own state, that little state of Tennessee, if he had carried it, he would’ve been president of the United States, but he couldn’t. And for those you who are so upset that the electoral college can produce a president with less than 50%, may I point out the election of 1860, the most popular president or the second most popular president in this country is Abraham Lincoln. And when he ran for office in 1860, he got 39.9% of the popular vote, 39.9%, and he was running against several of the candidates. He never, on the next election in 1864, he got 55%. But in 1860, this electoral college produced one of the greatest presidents in American history

Sam Rohrer:

That

David New:

We’ve ever had.

Sam Rohrer:

And there we go. Ladies and gentlemen, those are the arguments for making a change. We come back, we’re going to consider the strongest arguments against making a change and then consequences if in fact changes were made. Well, as we go into our final segment here, and I just want to thank all of you for being a part of the program today, and as I often say and can’t say it enough, if God’s blessing you through this program, and I know it is for so very, very many, share it with a friend. It’s an easy, easy thing to do. It doesn’t cost anything. Just a note of, Hey, I’ve listened to staying on the gap today. Have you ever listened to it? You ought to it. And then tell ’em how they can do it. That’s a great, great way to do it because in these days when truth is so hard to find, when as we do here, it is what we share is absolutely the truth because we define truth according to how God’s word interprets it.

And because of that, then what is said can be and is reliable. So that being case, I would just encourage you to do that. If you’ve not decided to pray for us regularly, please do that. That is so very important. And perhaps if you have never participated with us financially, become a partner, even in a small way, I would surely ask that you would consider doing that. It is necessary. I don’t talk about it very much. I don’t like to spend time begging. We don’t give away rabbit’s, feet and other kinds of things that other programs may do. That’s not what it’s about. But if the Lord is blessing you through this, then share. Because I think that’s an obligation that we all have. So do what you can and then we’ll just leave it there. David, let’s go into this final segment here now because as you’ve said, you’ve identified so far, there’s been some domestic organizations or our globalist organizations as we sit in the past that have looked for constitutional change.

There are major well-known organizations today that are, they’re very epitome of and they push hard. And they have been for a global government, the United Nations, that’s what they’re all about. World economic forum people from an economic perspective, but they want themselves in the middle. Central bankers, they’ve all been a part of that. They are a part of it. And then you’ve got these guys that have come on the scenes, the big billionaires, the high tech billionaires, bill Gates, who’s also part of World Economic Forum, and Sam Altman, he’s part of that too, and Peter Thiel and all these other guys who are now involved in the hard push for artificial intelligence database building because it’s all, it’s been very clear. It’s all 24 hour surveillance, putting everything together, forcing everybody into a digital system. They’re all global governance people. And what makes it odd in that regard is because our current administration is working with these same people.

So there’s a lot taking place that is ultimately impacting our constitution and our sovereignty. Now that being the case, I’m just going to leave it there at that point because point being, we are watching and have been in the midst of watching incremental change and even big change to our constitution. Some changes, actual official changes. But I’m going to suggest that most of that now we’re just ignoring it. I mean, why do you think we have a budget impasse right now? Because previous congresses didn’t do their constitutional obligation. Why do you think we’ve overspent half $37 trillion worth of debt that’s destroying our nation? How does that happen? Because those who have an obligation under the oath refused to do it. Alright, so we can incur harm by a change or we can incur harm just by ignoring it. So I’m going to put that out there. But David give a couple of major leading arguments against changing our Constitution and then a consequence or two that you think would be paramount if in fact the Constitution were to be dislodged as our sovereign document, our highest document of civil law.

David New:

There are several things that would happen if the United States Constitution was vacated or not so much vacated, but replaced or superseded by a new Constitution. First and foremost, I suppose not the most important one, but very important because there’s one that’s more important than one I’m going to mention. The first is national independence would disappear. This country would now be what a state is to the federal government. The United States will be to an international world government. So we would be just one of many states that have a vote in how the world is run. And that’s bad. That means our Bill of Rights wouldn’t amount to very much. That means our president and our members of Congress wouldn’t have very much power. That means the Supreme Court would not have the power that it should have. So national independence is very, very bad. But there’s one above all the others that is important to me and that is religious freedom.

If the United States was to supersede this constitution with another one, it is absolutely certain, almost guaranteed that the people who put that constitution together would not be like the 39 signers of the US Constitution. I put this information in my book that’s now in progress with the publishers, and I discussed what the 39 signers of the US Constitution were like and what they are on record saying about religion. Let me read this to you. Two signers of the United States said that the United States was a free Protestant English settlement. Two signers of the US Constitution said the law of God was supreme over a man’s law. One said the Holy Spirit should guide America. Six signers of the US Constitution said America should confess her sins to God. Three signers wanted Christianity spread throughout the whole world. One of them quoted Habakkuk two 14. The knowledge of God should cover the earth as the waters cover the seas.

Four signers were presidents, vice presidents are managers of Bible societies. Another said the Bible should be a law book for the US government. One signer wrote a book to prove the Bible was scientifically accurate. Three wanted Christianity taught in the schools. One signer wrote a law that effectively put prayer in the Bible and the public schools. Another signer made that same law a federal law and put religion in the schools nationwide. Two signers said God made the US Constitution possible. One signer listed key passages from the Bible to support the ratification of the constitution. Another said the Bible was the principle of all sound political science. One signer wanted clergy to attend the state conventions to vote for the Constitution. And they did by a large margin. At least two signers freed their slaves because of Christianity and they gave Acts 10 34 as a reason to do it. Another petition, Congress to end slavery because of the Christian religion. One sider wanted to use federal tax money to buy all the slaves in the United States of America. And freedom. One quoted Genesis chapter one, to legally define property. Another opposed the word slave in the Constitution because Genesis one taught that a human being cannot be property. Another signer said Presidents may issue religious proclamations because of King Solomon. So you see, ladies and gentlemen, the people who are going to put this future constitution together are going to be very different from these people.

Sam Rohrer:

And David New, what a listing of wonderful things to remember. So ladies and gentlemen, I think it should be obvious. Our Constitution was based on God’s word. The truth, the principles of it. It is increasingly ignored. But if we were replace it, we would in fact lose every legal protection we have.